Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(19-12-2012 02:50 PM)ScienceGeek2587 Wrote:  There is no science against evolution, just like there's no science against gravity (or anything else.) Science studies things, describes what is, what has been, and sometimes what could be, get over it.

75 Theses:
Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
Growth and reproduction require cell division.
Cell division is a complex process.
There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the existence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.
Sorry I'm late to the dance, but indulge me:

This is nonsense. The second option doesn't actually answer anything. It merely transfers the issue at hand to a much greater question.

How did life come into existence? It was created by God. This, of course, presumes a Living God. Which transfers the question from How did [earthly, observable, we-all-agree-it's-there] life come into existence to How did [unproven, postulated, speculated, never demonstrated] God's life come into existence.

Before answering HOW God came into [real] existence, it should be demonstrated that God [really] exists in the first place. Otherwise, it is as unnecessary to explain the origin of God as it is to explain the origin of Hippogriffs.

If we were to assume God exists, then the question of how life came into existence incorporates God into the life side, not the origin of life side.

But you go on thinking this thread started off on a really clever question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
23-04-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(23-04-2013 08:11 AM)RightOfCenter Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 02:50 PM)ScienceGeek2587 Wrote:  There is no science against evolution, just like there's no science against gravity (or anything else.) Science studies things, describes what is, what has been, and sometimes what could be, get over it.

75 Theses:
Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
Growth and reproduction require cell division.
Cell division is a complex process.
There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

"Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow."


With you so far.

" Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved."

Oh, too bad. That is not true. You see, you have to actually have Supernature in order for there to be a supernatural cause. So, since Supernature has never been demonstrated to exist and nothing like supernature has ever been shown to interact with the known universe, you can't actually pull that claim out and use it and expect to be taken seriously.

"Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations."

No, science is defined as an observation of the natural world. It has nothing to do with how schools define it, it has everything to do with what science actually is.

"Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth."

Science is the scientific method. And the Scientific Method makes no claims about "truth." Only observations and explanations of reality. Whether it is an absolute truth or not is never the goal of science. Especially since Science has no goals. Scientists do though.

"The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments."

That would be deductive science. Geologists and paleontologists use inductive reasoning. Hypotheses are made and the geologic record is used to test the validity of these claims. But the geologic and fossil record are not controlled experiments.

"If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes."

Okay.

"If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions."

Which is why we are still trying to figure out what the Earth was like >3 billion years ago. We don't know all that much about it, but one thing is for sure, reproducing an entire Earth-system in order to replicate the appearance of life, is no small task. Which is why the rock record is used to test our hypotheses. Ergo, inductive reasoning in science.

"For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success."

No. We did find it. It is here, on Earth. You should also keep in mind that time is a factor too. Large amounts of time cannot be replicated in a lab. Which is, once again, why we use the geologic record to test our hypotheses.

"Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally."

And a lot of answers to those questions revolve around better understanding life at places like deep-sea hydrothermal vents. And is also the reason we are looking for appropriate conditions elsewhere. Not having answers at this point, does not mean anything other than, we don't have all the answers. Which any scientist worth their weight in salt will already tell you.

I'll address the rest later. Drinking Beverage

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Science against evolution
Someone was apparently too eager to post long, passive aggressive posts that they didn't have the ability to read the forum rules.

4 unapproved posts? In the creationism forum.

Dodgy

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(23-04-2013 08:11 AM)RightOfCenter Wrote:  75 Theses:

More like 75 pieces of dog shit.

Most of them have been proven wrong, over and over and over again.

All the cellular life/abiogenesis crap is completely off base. As is the radiometric dating. Dendritic dating, and ice core dating completely 100 % agrees and confirms it. The chances that ALL 3 agree, and ALL 3 were wrong in the SAME exact way, is impossibly low.

Scientists have created a living cell. So you are 100 % wrong. Too bad. Get over yourself. Tell your Jebus thanks for giving us the opportunity to point out just how wrong you "beliebers " actually are, and how much you try to lie as you NEED to deceive to get across your crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

Watch and learn something, instead of shoveling shit.


















Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-04-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(23-04-2013 08:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-04-2013 08:11 AM)RightOfCenter Wrote:  Whanh whanh whanh, whanh whanh whanh whanh whanh.
I'll address the rest later. Drinking Beverage

Thanks Beardy but, no thanks. You have more reality based things to think about, I'm sure and I wouldn't want you to waste your time... or mine. Surely, we have more coherent things to give a shit about. Just sayin'. Drinking Beverage


Now, where did I put that Wall-o-text-be-gone? Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
23-04-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: Science against evolution
75 theses, nailed to the door
75 theses, nailed to the door
And if one of those theses
Is fundamentally flawed
Then there'll be 74 theses nailed to the door.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-04-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: Science against evolution
You guys scared him off? Ah well, I wouldn't have wasted my breath anyway.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(23-04-2013 10:15 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You guys scared him off? Ah well, I wouldn't have wasted my breath anyway.

Nah, he thinks he's a modern day Martin Luther or something, nailing 75 theses (wtf is with theists and words and numbers, they act like they magically make things more believable ? ) to the door and pissing off at high speed before the church authorities catch him...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(23-04-2013 04:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-04-2013 10:15 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You guys scared him off? Ah well, I wouldn't have wasted my breath anyway.

Nah, he thinks he's a modern day Martin Luther or something, nailing 75 theses (wtf is with theists and words and numbers, they act like they magically make things more believable ? ) to the door and pissing off at high speed before the church authorities catch him...

I am talking about the schmo who thinks the universe is the volume of a small star, not the schmuck who wants to be Martin Luther or the fuck ever.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: